It's quite a bit less expensive than the Iraq war was and is (health plan is going to cost tax payers something like 50-60 billion a year, Iraq + Afghanistan was $136 billion in 2009), as far as I can tell that didn't quite bankrupt us. Thirty years of NASA, in adjusted dollars, is actually MORE expensive (currently it's at about 17 billion a year). No need to be alarmist about this. Whether it passed or didn't, life is going to go on in this country.

I have a friend with bad knees, a family history of alzheimer's and a long history of awful migraines. At this point, I should think he's pretty happy, as they raised the age cap for children covered to 26 (he's 25) under family heath plans and are eliminating pre-existing condition denials. He's been without health care for several years now.

Myself, it looks like I'll be upgrading from the current crap I have now, which is basically useless unless I'm hit by a truck (no coverage til like the $10,000 mark).

We'll see how well the plan functions as a whole, but anyone who can't see ANY good in it isn't looking hard enough.

I'm not saying there is NOTHING good about it. I'm saying that we simply can't afford it. Our country has a national debt of $14 trillion, an annual deficit of over a trillion now, and this bill, by the President's own scoring, will cost another trillion . . . . and I'll almost guarantee those numbers are off. Every single entitlement ever passed has cost more than projected, and once in place, are virtually impossible to reduce or eliminate.

What we will see is broader health coverage in exchange for longer waits, worse care, higher premiums for those with private insurance, higher death rates from cancer, and most doctors simply opting out of Medicare altogether. This was a horrible, horrible bill. Ask any doctor how he feels about it.

On the bright side, a whole lot of Democrats signed their political death warrants last night. Shame I'm in a Republican district . . . I'd love to be on the "firing squad" come election day (figurative use of the term ONLY, not an endorsement of political violence of any sort!).

I'm not saying there is NOTHING good about it. I'm saying that we simply can't afford it. Our country has a national debt of $14 trillion, an annual deficit of over a trillion now, and this bill, by the President's own scoring, will cost another trillion . . . . and I'll almost guarantee those numbers are off. Every single entitlement ever passed has cost more than projected, and once in place, are virtually impossible to reduce or eliminate.

At the last count, about half the bill is being footed from private sources (not tax payer funds, primarily health insurance companies). I really don't see how an extra fifty billion a year is the major difference between a workable budget and one that is untenable. Not when expenditure is some three thousand eight hundred billion a year. You might be right about Obama's OVERALL budget being too deficit ridden (you must be mad at Bush now for increasing the deficit so much, right?). But the health care bill is a relatively small chunk of that increase - not enough to make a difference either way, in my estimation.

You're certainly right that things could go very wrong with it though. We'll see. The bill passing certainly makes the 2010 elections pretty interesting, that I also have to agree on. A lot of people don't like this bill, from both sides. Quite a few liberals seem to think it didn't go nearly far enough, as one interesting example. On the other hand, I suspect the elderly and a lot of young voters will like the immediate effects. They can swing elections when they come out - particularly the elderly in a mid-term.

I'm not saying there is NOTHING good about it. I'm saying that we simply can't afford it. Our country has a national debt of $14 trillion, an annual deficit of over a trillion now, and this bill, by the President's own scoring, will cost another trillion . . . . and I'll almost guarantee those numbers are off. Every single entitlement ever passed has cost more than projected, and once in place, are virtually impossible to reduce or eliminate.

At the last count, about half the bill is being footed from private sources (not tax payer funds, primarily health insurance companies). I really don't see how an extra fifty billion a year is the major difference between a workable budget and one that is untenable. Not when expenditure is some three thousand eight hundred billion a year. You might be right about Obama's OVERALL budget being too deficit ridden (you must be mad at Bush now for increasing the deficit so much, right?). But the health care bill is a relatively small chunk of that increase - not enough to make a difference either way, in my estimation.

You're certainly right that things could go very wrong with it though. We'll see. The bill passing certainly makes the 2010 elections pretty interesting, that I also have to agree on. A lot of people don't like this bill, from both sides. Quite a few liberals seem to think it didn't go nearly far enough, as one interesting example. On the other hand, I suspect the elderly and a lot of young voters will like the immediate effects. They can swing elections when they come out - particularly the elderly in a mid-term.

Time will tell how it all plays out.

Well considered words, Jim H. Indiana, as a historian, you should well note responses to Social Security in 1935 and Medicare (1965); I think it's safe to say these entitlements are sacred cow now, brown cow. The thing that I think is most important about this bill is that it isn't about making somebody rich.

Somebody will be getting rich . . . you betcha, as Sarah Palin would say!

But you just made my point: Once these things are in place, they are pretty much irrevocable, regardless of how much they cost (SS) or how rife with corruption and fraud they are (Medicare).

There were things that could have been done that would have brought costs down without this bloated monster of a bill getting passed . . . . and they were rejected out of hand. I really, really dislike this administration.

And yes, the overspending by the Republicans in Congress bothered me. Not the war - I still consider that removing Saddam and stabilizing Iraq (not to mention luring tens of thousands of Al Qaeda and Hizbollah foot soldiers into a kill zone where we could take them out) was militarily necessary and strategically sound. But overall, the Republicans spent like a drunk sailor in Tijuana. But this Congress makes them look like pikers. I HOPE my party has learned its lesson from four years in the wilderness and will be able to govern like real conservatives if and when they recapture Congress.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but... Socialism isnt new. We have been a socialized country for decades. Medicaid, Medicare, SS, Unemployment..etc. sure you could make the argument with SS & unemployment that people pay in but they usually pay in less than what they get back and some(many) pay in and never collect.. soooo

They are paying for those that get benefits. SOCIALISM! The fact is our tax dollars pay for all kinds of things we don't want, and don't use. Thats life. I dont like paying for war, abstinence only education, and many, many other things. But alas, it isnt all about me.

Have kids in public school? no? You are paying for them. Ever used the fire department? you are paying for it. Use the public library, public hospital, drive on roads? You are paying for it.

Deficits.. huh, funny thing deficits.. A lot of republicans are for them when they include death.. war. Or when its tax cuts for the rich..Bush tax cuts anyone? Those two things added what? 2 trillion to the deficit.. and counting.

Against them when they have the potential to save lives... heath care reform.

The fact is the heath care system in this country is broken. Do I like this bill? Not particularly, but its a start.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 01:45:37 PM by 3mnkids »

Logged

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far~ ruminations

I'm actually quite worried about this bill. Everyone that is opposed to it is up in arms about it being unconstitutional because it is being forced upon citizens, who will be financially penalized if they don't sign up for government mandated health care. That definitely doesn't jive well with me. And the bill itself is too damned wordy for typical Americans to even attempt to read through.

A condensed (i.e. dumbed down) version should be made available that outlines EVERY single change. Then after the citizens of our great country are fully "in the know," WE THE PEOPLE should vote on it ourselves, not the idiotic and greedy politicians.

I don't mind when people rant, say their opinions, and argue why it is a bad thing, but this is a bit too obessive.

I wonder if the way the republican supporters and tea party people (not always the same thing, of course) have been acting will make a choice few of them stop insisting liberals/democrats are the only ones who partake in name calling, mud slinging and other unacceptable behaviors. Remember the depictions of Bush by the MoveOn people? Obnoxious attacks, rudeness, and cruelty aren't reserved by any one side.

Quote

There were things that could have been done that would have brought costs down without this bloated monster of a bill getting passed . . . . and they were rejected out of hand.

Well, the one thing it DOES do that was also bandied about by Republicans is opening up the system more. It is allowing more competition between the private insurer's across state lines. I think that is one change everyone can agree is good. Oh yeah, and this change really is probably an overall win for the private insurers. Their stocks have gone through the roof. Probably the knowledge that they'll soon be gaining 30 million more customers is enough to do that.

On another note, Indiana, you're my favorite kind of conservative. Classical outlook on spending, consistent, respectable, and not one who toes the party line when the party violates its own principles.

Here's a relevant scene from a movie well known for its brilliant critique of politics.